Dilawar Hussain vs Muhammad Iqbal etc.

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Case No. C.R. No.192/2017

Dilawar Hussain Versus Muhammad Iqbal, etc.

Sr.No.of order/ Date of order/ Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, Proceedings Proceedings where necessary.

24.09.2026 Nemo for the petitioner.

Ch. Shaukat Nawaz Sulehria, Advocate for respondent No.1.

M/s Shafique Ahmad Nasir & Rana Nasrullah Khan, Advocates for respondent No.4.

Instant civil revision is pending since 2017, whereafter multiple applications have been given by the petitioner side for fixation of the same through early hearing, but the same is of no result. However, main revision has been fixed before this Court for the first time on 01.06.2026 after 2024, whereafter notice was issued to the petitioner's counsel with last opportunity, as the name of the petitioner's counsel, Rana Asad Hameed, Advocate, is reflected in the cause list. Even the office confirms that notice has been received to the said advocate, but he never appeared in the case. Therefore, this Court has been left with no other option but to proceed in accordance with the record and adjudicate the matter accordingly.

2.Through the civil revision, Dilawar Hussain petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Sialkot, whereby the claim of the petitioner- plaintiff has been dismissed.

3.As per claim of the petitioner in revision petition, Dilawar Hussain, filed a suit for declaration and challenged the inheritance mutation No.111 dated 18.04.1994, referred as Exh.P2 as well as Exh.D1 in the Trial Court. Further claimed that late Abdullah died in the year 1989 leaving behind two sons and two daughters, respondents No.1 to 4, as well as the mother of the petitioner, namely

Sughran Bibi, who died prior to the demise of late Abdullah on 03.02.1968, however, respondents No.1 to 4 while incorporating the inheritance mutation of Abdullah in question, excluded the name of Sughran Bibi as the mother of the petitioner. Therefore, when the petitioner came to know this fact, he approached the revenue authorities but to no avail, and he was directed to file a civil suit, and pursuant to the said observation, he filed the civil suit, which has been decreed, however, the first appellate court, which has set aside the judgment and decree and dismissed the suit without any lawful justification. It has further asserted that petitioner has produced the most crucial witness in this case, which is Muhammad Boota PW-2, son of Alif Deen, the real brother of late Abdullah and real uncle of respondents No.1 to 4, aged 85 years, confirmed the lineage of Sughran Bibi and declared that she was a daughter of Abdullah. But despite that, the appellate court has ignored this crucial evidence which is in terms of Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

4.Conversely, learned counsels for the respondents contends that the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden and, as such, mere claiming that Sughran Bibi is the daughter of Abdullah is not sufficient, especially when no documentary admissible evidence has been brought on record, nor any reason has been explained as to, in the year 1989, Abdullah died, but the petitioner never ever visited Abdullah or other family members to disclose his relationship, therefore, this appeal was rightly allowed and the judgment and decree was properly set-aside.

5.Arguments heard, record perused.

6.Perusal of the record reflects that the entire dispute revolves around Mutation No.111, Exh.P2/Exh.D1, which is an inheritance mutation impugned before the learned civil court by one Dilawar Hussain with the claim that his maternal grandfather Abdullah died in the year 1989, whereafter inheritance mutation Exh.P2 has been incorporated by the real son, Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No. 1, and he only refers to two daughters and two sons, namely

Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Niaz, Kubra Bibi and Bashiran Bibi, excluding the mother of the petitioner, Sughran Bibi, who died on 03.02.1968, much prior to the demise of her father Abdullah. When he came to know that the inheritance mutation was incorporated, he challenged the same by filing an application for review before the District Officer Revenue, Exh.P3, and an order to that extent dated 15.02.2011 was passed, referred as Exh.P4, thereafter an appeal was filed before Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sialkot by the respondent, Exh.P5, and a decision to that extent was passed on 14.04.2011 by the EDO(R) Sialkot, Exh.P6 respectively, with the observation that the plaintiff should approach the civil court for declaration of his rights, whereafter he filed the instant suit. The suit has been contested by the respondent, who denies any relationship whatsoever of Sughran Bibi with late Abdullah and claims that the inheritance mutation was recorded in accordance with law.

7.Considering this aspect, the trial court framed the issues based upon divergent readings of the parties, and the entire case revolves around issue No.4, whether Sughran Bibi is daughter of Abdullah? OPP issue No.5, whether inheritance mutation No.111 is against law and facts? OPP, and issue No.6, whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for declaration and permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP. In view of this, the petitioner side has produced the most crucial witness in this case, PW-2 Muhammad Boota son of Alif Deen, who in categorical terms stated that Muhammad Iqbal, son of Abdullah, is his real nephew and Abdullah was his real brother, who left behind two sons, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Niaz, and three daughters, Mst. Kubra Bibi, Mst. Bashiran Bibi and Mst. Sughran Bibi, and confirmed that Sughran Bibi was the real daughter of Abdullah, who died much prior to the demise of her father, about 45 years ago. This important evidence is also supported with the age of the said witness, who was 85 years of age, and he has been cross- examined by the respondent side, though certain criminal cases were referred to establish that there is some enmity between Muhammad Boota and the respondents. But whether that aspect can refute the

C.R. No.192/2017 4

testimony of PW-2, who remained consistent, especially when the respondent appeared in a witness box as DW-1, Muhammad Iqbal, never stated a single word as to why his own real uncle, the brother of his father, recorded the testimony and verifies the relationship, including the relationship of Sughran Bibi with late Abdullah. DW-1 Muhammad Iqbal acknowledges that the lumberdar of the village is Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Shafee who was alive and inheritance mutation was incorporated on his instructions and he provided the pedigree but no justification has been rendered as to why the said lumberdar, who according to the respondent's own version was the person through whom the pedigree was furnished, has not been produced in the Court. The non-production of such a natural and material witness assumes significance where the very correctness and completeness of the pedigree recorded in Mutation No.111 is in dispute. Hence, adverse effect in terms of article 129(g) of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984 comes on the surface and an adverse presumption can legitimately be drawn that, had the said lumberdar been produced, his testimony may not have supported the case of respondent Muhammad Iqbal.

The respondent side, on the other hand, also produced another Muhammad Boota as DW-2, who has no connection whatsoever or a blood relationship with late Abdullah, and this aspect was acknowledged by the said DW-2 in this manner:-

.دبعاہّٰللےسریماوکیئرہتشہنےہاہتبلریمےاگؤںاکاھت

Therefore, his testimony stands discarded. The defendant side also produced Jameel Ahmed Gardawar, who appeared as DW-3 and verified the mutation No.111 and confirmed that it contains his signatures. However, during the course of cross-examination, he confirms that said mutation is of inheritance mutation:- .ںیمدبعاہللےکواراثنوکہناجاتنوہں

.ںیمہناتباتکسوہںہکااقتنلذہاںیمدرجدشہواراثنلمکمواراثندبعاہللںیہایںیہن

C.R. No.192/2017 5

.ریمیوکیئذہمداریہنےہہکںیمواراثنیکابتبقیقحتایدصتقیرکاتروہں .ریماواراثنیکقیقحتایدصتقیےسوکیئواہطسہنےہ

Considering the above-referred omissions on the part of the said Jameel Ahmed Gardawar, there is no evidentiary value existing in favour of mutation No.111, as the attesting witnesses are clueless with regard to the relationship. An inheritance mutation, being consequential to the determination of succession, cannot by its mere incorporation conclusively establish the correctness or completeness of the pedigree recorded therein, particularly when the very relationship of an omitted heir is the subject matter of dispute. In the present case, DW-3, the official witness associated with the mutation, expressly admitted that he did not know the heirs of Abdullah and could not state whether the persons entered in Mutation No.111 constituted all his legal heirs. The mutation, therefore, cannot independently establish the non-existence of Sughran Bibi as a daughter of Abdullah. Therefore, the entire case is to be seen in the light of Article 64 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order 1984, where court has to form an opinion as to relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship of any person who as a member of family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the subject is a relevant fact.

8.Article 64 does not make every statement concerning relationship relevant merely because it is made by a relative. The statutory requirement is that the person expressing the opinion must possess special means of knowledge regarding the relationship and that such opinion is expressed through conduct recognizing such relationship. Article 64 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 makes a person's opinion about a relationship relevant when these two conditions are met. Bare assertion that these persons descend from same ancestor does not by itself satisfy the article as explained in (Khuda Bakhsh versus Habib Ullah) 1999 SCMR 1800, the Supreme Court of Pakistan yielded this practical test for disputed ancestral link. The inquiry, therefore, is not merely as to the number, age or

designation of the witness, but whether the witness possesses special means of knowledge of the particular relationship and whether his testimony is supported by conduct or other evidence recognizing such relationship. In (Jalib Khan and 9 others versus Mst. Subhani and others) 1999 SCMR 2502, a pedigree that named some persons but did not connect them to alleged ancestor failed to prove the collateral relationship. Likewise, in (Rustam and others versus Jehangir (deceased) through LRs), 2023 SCMR 730, the Supreme Court reaffirmed, while referring to (Bashir Ahmed versus Muhammad Hussain), 2010 SCMR 822, that a pedigree table by itself does not prove relationship and that the relationship has to be established through witnesses or other independent evidence. The principle emerging from the above jurisprudence is that the pedigree appearing in an inheritance mutation cannot substitute proof of the relationship itself.

9.There is no rule requiring witnesses of a particular number, age or degree of kinship to appear in the case and establish the relationship. What is material is whether the witness can credibly explain his special means of knowledge regarding the specific ancestral connection. In (Abdul Ghafoor and others versus Kallu and others), 2008 SCMR 452, the Supreme Court did not discard the testimony of village witnesses merely because they were unable to state the names of all forefathers. The credibility of relationship evidence, therefore, has to be assessed in the context of the witness's association with the family and the nature of knowledge possessed by him. A bare recital of a family tree without such foundation may not satisfy Article 64; conversely, inability to remember every detail of genealogy cannot, by itself, discredit otherwise reliable evidence of a relationship.

10.Considering the above-referred tests and the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, it appears that the respondent-defendant in this case have not been able to create any doubt in the testimony of petitioner's important witness PW-2,

who is the real brother of late Abdullah and nephew of the respondent's as well as of the petitioner's mother, late Sughran Bibi, who is 85 years of age, and his testimony is required to be assessed not merely on account of his age or blood relationship, but because his close blood relationship with Abdullah and the respondents provides him with special means of knowledge regarding the children of Abdullah. He specifically identified Muhammad Iqbal as his real nephew and consistently stated that Abdullah had three daughters, including Sughran Bibi. His testimony, therefore, is not a mere recital of a pedigree but emanates from a person having direct and special knowledge of the family relationship in question.

11.The fact that PW-2 is a close relative does not, by itself, make his testimony conclusive; however, neither can his testimony be discarded merely on account of that relationship. The relevant consideration under Article 64 is whether he possessed the requisite special means of knowledge, and in the present case his admitted relationship with Abdullah and his direct identification of the children of Abdullah sufficiently explain the source of such knowledge. No doubt, such cases where pedigree is in question are required to be demonstrated with other documentary evidence, but in this case, all such lineage is not brought on record except the impugned mutation No.111, which was prepared on the instructions of Muhammad Iqbal, the respondent, and same was recorded by the official witness DW-3, but he was not able to prove those minimum requirements of verification as to whether the person who is incorporating the inheritance mutation before the official authority is explaining with truth or on oath, nor DW-3 was able to confirm that the names provided as the legal heirs of late Abdullah are correct.

The evidentiary value of PW-2 becomes further significant when considered alongside the respondent's own evidence. DW-1 Muhammad Iqbal acknowledges that the Lambardar Muhammad Yousaf was alive and that the inheritance mutation was incorporated on the basis of the pedigree furnished through him. Yet,

the said natural witness was not produced. On the other hand, DW-3, who verified the mutation, expressly disclaimed any knowledge as to whether the persons recorded therein constituted the complete body of heirs of Abdullah. Thus, the respondent's documentary and official evidence does not furnish an independent basis for rejecting the testimony of PW-2 or for establishing that Sughran Bibi was not a daughter of Abdullah.

12.The principle of preponderance of probabilities does not require the petitioner to establish the relationship through a particular form or number of evidence. What is required is that, when the evidence is assessed cumulatively, the asserted relationship emerges as more probable than its denial. In the present case, the direct testimony of PW-2, his special means of knowledge, the absence of any satisfactory explanation from DW-1 regarding the testimony of his own real uncle, the non-production of the Lambardar who allegedly supplied the pedigree, and the material admissions of DW-3 regarding the limited evidentiary basis of Mutation No.111, collectively support the petitioner's case.

13.The jurisdiction of this Court under section 115, C.P.C. is not being exercised merely to substitute one possible view of the evidence for another. Interference is warranted where material evidence bearing directly upon the controversy has been ignored or misread, resulting in a finding which is not sustainable on the evidence available on record. In the present case, the learned first appellate court failed to properly appreciate the testimony of PW-2, the admissions of DW-1 and the material concessions made by DW-3 regarding the preparation and verification of Mutation No.111. The impugned finding, therefore, suffers from non-reading and misreading of material evidence and calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

14.In presence of the real uncle's testimony, which satisfies the requirement of special means of knowledge contemplated by Article 64, and when the same is considered in conjunction with the respondent's own evidence and the deficiencies in the proof of

Mutation No.111, the petitioner has successfully discharged the burden placed upon him under Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The respondent has failed to establish any convincing basis for the exclusion of Sughran Bibi from the lineage of late Abdullah.

15.It is, however, material that Sughran Bibi admittedly died on 03.02.1968, whereas her father Abdullah died in the year 1989. Therefore, the legal consequence of the declaration regarding her relationship with Abdullah is to be determined in accordance with the applicable law governing succession to the estate of Abdullah, including the rights, if any, of the surviving legal heirs of the branch of Sughran Bibi. The declaration that Sughran Bibi was the daughter of Abdullah cannot, by itself, be understood as directing that a person who predeceased the opening of succession be entered as a surviving heir.

16.Consequently, instant civil revision stands allowed, the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 08.12.2016 is set aside, and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is restored to the extent that it declares Mst. Sughran Bibi to be the daughter of late Abdullah and holds Mutation No.111 to be incorrect to the extent of exclusion of her branch. The revenue authorities are directed to correct the revenue record and incorporate the legal heirs of late Mst. Sughran Bibi in accordance with law, after determining their entitlement in the estate of late Abdullah in accordance with the applicable law of succession.

(Mohsin Akhtar Kayani) Judge Approved for reporting

Judge Jahanzaib*